1-2 Punch flow Chart

[jdpeach]

HELP! I am in the process of completing the 1-2 punch. I am stuck on what to do with one CA. I sent them the first DV. The CA replied with a partial validation (with only the billing statement from the OC). So, then I sent them a 2nd DV stating that they only partially validated my account and that I would need a full validation including my signature, their authority to collect, and so forth. In response, the CA sent another letter stating that my dispute is repetitive and they consider any future communication will be "frivulous and irrevelant" according to FCRA. The CA also stated in this letter that they have reported my account in "dispute" to the CRA. Is this good or bad and what should I do?

 

JD

[Cherish]

ttt

[nonaii]

That's pretty good. One thing you left out, and several of the JDBs do this, is the Chaundry cite with a bogus affidavit. Chaundry doesn't apply, and an affidavit from a CA or JDB saying "yep you owe us" is not validation.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I dont know much of Anything abou JDB's, dont even know if some of my CA's might be JDB's?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

JDBs = Junk debt buyers. The difference is they buy old debts for pennies on the dollar, then use every trick in the book to get people to pay, most of the time on debts that are far beyond being legally enforcable. Some try to claim otherwise, but in the eyes of the law they fall under the provisions of the FDCPA. Some of the biggest, and notorious JDBs:

 

Sherman/LVNV

Midland Credit Management

Cavalry Portfolio

Asset Acceptance

Unifund

Arrow Financial

NCO

 

You got that right. I wish I had known about this site before dealing with Satan.

[spino1i]

HELP! I am in the process of completing the 1-2 punch. I am stuck on what to do with one CA. I sent them the first DV. The CA replied with a partial validation (with only the billing statement from the OC). So, then I sent them a 2nd DV stating that they only partially validated my account and that I would need a full validation including my signature, their authority to collect, and so forth. In response, the CA sent another letter stating that my dispute is repetitive and they consider any future communication will be "frivulous and irrevelant" according to FCRA. The CA also stated in this letter that they have reported my account in "dispute" to the CRA. Is this good or bad and what should I do?

 

JD

 

You dispute through the CRA's. If they verify the debt to the CRA's then you have an easy court case against them.

[DragonFlyer]

ttt

 

We've had a lot of people asking for the "process" lately. This may help visualize it.

[DragonFlyer]

A recap of the chart (in case the server is ever down, I recopied it for display here):

 

[woe is me]

Ole 1-2 punch from the days of grendel(inventor of 1-2 punch).

 

Only thing I might disagree with is the need for a second validation request. I truly belive that one request for validation is enough! I know that some think repeated threats work, but once they have recieved legal demands, repeating oneself becomes counter productive...

[JohnP]

Forgot to renew the domain. Done and working again.

 

 

[Jen23514]

Ole 1-2 punch from the days of grendel(inventor of 1-2 punch).

 

Only thing I might disagree with is the need for a second validation request. I truly belive that one request for validation is enough! I know that some think repeated threats work, but once they have recieved legal demands, repeating oneself becomes counter productive...

 

I disagree.

 

if one can prove willful noncompliance, there are greater rewards if you take this to court.

 

giving them more than one chance to correct it seems reasonable.

[Lynn37]

I want to say, When I started here, I made this my background image.

[RacerX780]

Ole 1-2 punch from the days of grendel(inventor of 1-2 punch).

 

Only thing I might disagree with is the need for a second validation request. I truly belive that one request for validation is enough! I know that some think repeated threats work, but once they have recieved legal demands, repeating oneself becomes counter productive...

 

I disagree.

 

if one can prove willful noncompliance, there are greater rewards if you take this to court.

 

giving them more than one chance to correct it seems reasonable.

 

I'd disagree with you. Only because the FDCPA does not have any section with regards to willful or plain noncompliance. That's specific wording within the FCRA. So for disputes with tradelines, yes. You need to show willful noncompliance. But with the FDCPA, a violation is a violation.

 

 

-R

[Jen23514]

true (re willful noncomplianec)

 

We all have our views, I just happen to go with the POV that if I took this to court, I can tell the judge not only did I DV them 2x with specific disputes, but also disputed with the CRAs, giving the CA multiple times to correct, and they chose not to.

 

IMO, that is a stronger case than, they did it once and now I want my $1k

 

but you're right.... a violation is a violation under the FDCPA

[Jen23514]

So, i went back to research this, and this is what I got from the FDCPA:

 

§ 1692k. Civil liability

 

(a) Amount of damages. Except as otherwise provided by this section, any debt collector who fails

to comply with any provision of this title with respect to any person is liable to such person in an

amount equal to the sum of--

(1) any actual damage sustained by such person as a result of such failure;

(2) (A) in the case of any action by an individual, such additional damages as the court may allow,

but not exceeding $ 1,000; or

( in the case of a class action, (i) such amount for each named plaintiff as could be recovered

under subparagraph (A), and (ii) such amount as the court may allow for all other class members,

without regard to a minimum individual recovery, not to exceed the lesser of $ 500,000 or 1 per

centum of the net worth of the debt collector; and

(3) in the case of any successful action to enforce the foregoing liability, the costs of the action,

together with a reasonable attorney's fee as determined by the court. On a finding by the court that

an action under this section was brought in bad faith and for the purpose of harassment, the court

may award to the defendant attorney's fees reasonable in relation to the work expended and costs.

64

 

 

( Factors considered by court. In determining the amount of liability in any action under

subsection (a), the court shall consider, among other relevant factors--

(1) in any individual action under subsection (a)(2)(A), the frequency and persistence of

noncompliance by the debt collector, the nature of such noncompliance, and the extent to which

such noncompliance was intentional; or

(2) in any class action under subsection (a)(2)(, the frequency and persistence of noncompliance

by the debt collector, the nature of such noncompliance, the resources of the debt collector, the

number of persons adversely affected, and the extent to which the debt collector's noncompliance

was intentional.

 

 

© Intent. A debt collector may not be held liable in any action brought under this title if the debt

collector shows by a preponderance of evidence that the violation was not intentional and resulted

from a bona fide error notwithstanding the maintenance of procedures reasonably adapted to avoid

any such error.

 

both bolded reasons to DV them 2x before suing.

Edited August 28, 2009 by Jen23514

[RacerX780]

I'll concede.

 

But as you said, we all have our ways.

[Jen23514]

ttt

[snarf]

where is this chart? I would like to review it

bumpalophuguscrascanblowit

Edited March 3, 2010 by snarf

[sidecontrol]

I went through every single link and can't find the flowchart. Where is it?

[Crackie]

I went through every single link and can't find the flowchart. Where is it?

 

Breeze's version is in the stickies and pretty easy to understand.

 

http://creditboards.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=428895